On Evolution: Isn't the differences in the races proof of evolution?

Question

Even if you believe in Adam & Eve, two people couldn't breed all the different races on their own. Now if we assume we started in Africa, we would have looked the same, now think of how a toaster can darken different shades of bread.

Answer 1

yes

Answer 2

Well, to start with how Darwen got the idea of evolution. he believed that human races aren't equal. which means that he believed that some nations were less smart and intellegent that other ones, for example, there i a village in Turkey which all it's population walk on hands and feet.. then they are less able than we are. But if you mean that we differ because we are derived from different species ... I think this is sort of a weak idea, Because we at the end have the same shape, and the difference in color and features are just because of the environment. on the equator, all the nations share the dark skin, while in the north part of the world they all share the blond hair.

Answer 3

It means that DNA can mutate, and that physical characteristics that are advantageous to a lifeform in it's particular environment allow it to survive better and have more offspring to pass on it's DNA. So yes, the different races are evidence of evolution on a very minor and superficial scale.

Answer 4

Its the result of natural selection

Answer 5

Si'

Answer 6

After the Grand Canyon was formed, squirrels were isolated from each other due to the physical barrier. Because of this, they look totally different now. Same thing with Darwin and canaries and turtles. That's how I view races.

Since the human race hasn't had millions of years to evolve like other animals, I think it's only naturally we only have small differences in characteristics. We were isolated by oceans and mountains thousands of years ago, and I bet if we didn't have such advanced method of transportation, we would gradually become more and more different.

Answer 7

there is so much more to elaborate on.  While I believe in evolution your question wouldn't even come close to the answer.

Answer 8

No that is genetics, thats kind of like saying a cow with red and white spots and a cow with black and white spots are two different species. Humans have different hair, eyes, noses, body structures, etc, etc.

Answer 9

this is like one grain of sand on a mountain of evidence but yeah. I wouldn't call this the quintessential proof though. There is NO debate in the scientific community about evolution. The only debate is made by evangelists with fingers in their ears yelling "LALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU" and then citing some obscure author and calling it scientific proof and then all the parishioners go home from church feeling vindicated. You can literally watch evolution take place over a matter of weeks or months with fruit flies in a lab setting. The new drug resistant strains of viruses and bacteria are examples of natural selection. So are Heike crabs.

No amount of proof is going to convince someone who's self identity and feelings of superiority are based on their beliefs. Especially if the current evidence hasn't already so you are beating a dead horse.

Answer 10

We humans did start out in Africa, and we were all black.

The out of Africa migration was done during the first half of the Pleistrocence period. It was a time of ice ages, when sea levels dropped significantly and there was increased rainfall in many regions. At the same time Homo erectus was making stone tools and was able to use fire. The question of his being able to create fire has  not yet been answered. Given the favorable climate and the increased skills to control his environment, Homo erectus  spread out of Africa.

As for skin color:

"In their analysis of human evolutionary history, Jablonski and Chaplin concluded that modern humans most likely evolved in the tropics, where they were exposed to high UV levels. But as they moved into regions away from the equator, where UV levels are lower, humans became fairer so as to allow enough UV radiation to penetrate their skin and produce vitamin D, the "sunshine vitamin," also obtained from eating fish and marine mammals. Vitamin D is essential for maintaining healthy blood levels of calcium and phosphorous, and thus promoting bone growth.

Skin color, according to Jablonski and Chaplin, basically becomes a balancing act between the evolutionary demands of photo-protection and the need to create vitamin D in the skin.

One of the important implications of Jablonski and Chaplin's work is that it underlines the concept of race as purely a social construct, with no scientific grounds. DNA research has shown that genetically all humans, regardless of skin color and other surface distinctions, are basically the same. In an April 2001 article titled, "The Genetic Archaeology of Race," published in the Atlantic Monthly, Steve Olson writes "the genetic variants affecting skin color and facial features are essentially meaningless —they probably involve a few hundred of the billions of nucleotides in a person's DNA. Yet societies have built elaborate systems of privilege and control on these insignificant genetic differences."

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/02...

"Before the mass global migrations of people during the last 500 years, dark skin color was mostly concentrated in the southern hemisphere near the equator and light color progressively increased further away, as illustrated in the map below.  In fact, the majority of dark pigmented people lived within 20° of the equator.  Most of the lighter pigmented people lived in the northern hemisphere north of 20° latitude."

http://anthro.palomar.edu/adapt/adapt_4....

Answer 11

There is only one race, and that is the human race.  But yes, the diversity among the "Human Race", is more evidence that evolution is real.  There are so many ways to prove that evolution is real that it's hard to believe that many people still think it's not.